Actually, Huxley, Notwithstanding That Their Loyalty to You and to Massey Prevents It, It's the VCNZ's JOB to 'Be Drawn Into It'. That's How They Get to See That It's Anything BUT A 'Wholly Unfounded Complaint'. It's Also More than Just A 'Complaint'. As You Have Long Since Known.

I need to shatter an illusion that most pet owners live under. I wish I didn't have to. But you need to know the truth.

The thought that a vet to whom they have entrusted their pet's health, wellbeing, and physical treatment (whatever the case may be) could harm their pet – let alone intentionally – is a thought a pet owner doesn't want to think. And if they did ever entertain that thought, the average pet owner would be of the assumption that there would be somewhere they could go to report, complain about, or achieve some degree of accountability regarding, the offending veterinarian's conduct.

Technically speaking, there is. It's called the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). However, in reality, and in the actual, real-world experience, there actually isn't. Unfortunately, my being in a position of knowledge to write about it for the sake of my fellow pet parents, is something I wish I wasn't.

But here I am. And before any more of you find yourselves here too, let me roll out the reality in New Zealand, using the unfortunate "case study" of my precious little Harry.

Just briefly, one of the VCNZ's core mandates – aside from the licensing of veterinarians in New Zealand - is to ensure that those that hold the licences they have granted, actually uphold the required standards and, assumedly, the honorability of the profession.

Here are a few choice claims from the Councll's website (you'll want to hold on to these as you read through today's article):

"Our vision is for New Zealand to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession."

Yeah, right. I'd hate to see the least trusted. So will those readers who have been following this ongoing series of articles about Harry Kelly.

The above "vision" is going to be the one you'll – unfortunately – not only find the most dubious, but also the most laughable (not that any of the abuse, torture or killing of my precious little boy was in any way funny, notwithstanding Massey staff's mocking supply to me of their special "cameo" photos of his horrific suffering during their multiple cruel and twisted student videos; evil bastards who shouldn't be anywhere near animals of any description, a fact of which I'm quite certain the "Practice Manager", Pauline Nijman, is  acutely aware   and was almost certainly well aware when she must have approved the multiple atrocities that were covertly performed upon my pet with their clearly intended lethal outcome.)

But back to the VCNZ. You're going to see just how this outfit's actions contradict its stated intentions . . . and how it colludes directly with those ensuring that, in fact, Massey produces some of the most dangerous veterinary graduates in the world . . . and, worryingly, exports the graduates steeped in the culture that did what they did to Harry and enjoyed it, into a number of other countries.

Continuing on quoting from the VCNZ website:

"What we do

"The Veterinarians Act charges us with protecting the public interest by ensuring vets are competent to practise. We do this by:

• Registering vets who are properly trained and qualified
• Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet
• Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct
• Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets
• Issuing vets with annual practising certificates
• Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary
• Advising and making recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and Massey University on things related to vets, veterinary education and veterinary science."

Let me now go through all of the above – in my view, completely bogus claims (with the exception of "issuing vets with annual practising certificates") – and disprove the VCNZ's performance in every single one of these regards.

In my experience, this organisation is one of the most bought-out, despicable, compromised industry "regulatory", "watchdog" and "complaints" bodies in New Zealand. Quite an achievement to be sure, since we have more than a few. In my very direct experience and observation, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is about as far from being qualified, motivated, or structured to achieve any degree of neutrality or effectiveness in carrying out any of these mandates, as it could get.

Regular readers by now, all know how Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" (aka Veterinary Teaching "Hospital") ICU staff catastrophically and repeatedly (some 750% overdoses just 26 minutes apart) overdosed my utterly treasured and beloved little 3.8kg blind papillon, Harry, with not only a completely unnecessary (because he cried for me after I left him for an overnight rehydration procedure) with a contraindicated (for the kidney condition they knew full well that he had) convenience sedative (potentiated further with another), which was then repeated (rather than acted on as an emergency) by the day shift staff, who drugged him up further for usage in a series of student-filmed videos in his state of pharmaceutically-induced collapse, removing him from his by then life-essential rehydrating IV fluids, before calling me back to the facility and – in a lengthy and coercive session with (what turned out to be just) an intern  –   delivering a false diagnosis of his having suffered some sudden and inexplicable "neurological decline" and demanding that I sign a form for his immediate "euthanasia".

It also involves some horrifying scenes and practices by the "vet" (the one that turned out to be the "rotating intern" and who fronted the entire fraud in a solo mission i.e. "Dr" Stephanie Rigg, whose identity I have had to seek out for myself, with Massey blacking out the names and titles of all staff in the "Clinical Summary" they released, and refusing all legal obligations to disclose them.) And thereafter the fact that Massey managed to lose any track of what happened to Harry and his ashes.

(It utterly nauseates and infuriates me to use the words "remains" or "ashes" in conjunction with Harry. Harry shouldn't even be dead. He should, and would, be sleeping peacefully in his little office cot here beside me here tonight, if not for the utter evil perpetrated upon he and I by this dangerous institution and the equally dangerous staff they allow to do as they please with their private, richly paying and unsuspecting clients' pets – including overdosing, filming, abusing, manhandling, torturing and then killing them under the guise of false and engineered "diagnoses" and "prognoses".)

My regular readers will also recall that when I returned to my home two weeks later (Harry and I had been living in a small camper van when an insurance repair project had gone pear-shaped at my property and were both heat-affected and sleep-deprived) that – always knowing that something had been very off with the whole story, somehow – I studied the invoice that they had failed to hand me when I paid on that fateful day. Readers will also know that – notwithstanding the hell I've been through trying to extract Harry's "records" from Massey, which I only have a small and falsified subset of thus far – I've been progressively putting the real and truly awful picture together of exactly what they had done to Harry in those 15 horror story hours between the time I left him for a simple procedure and was subsequently called back to find an unrecognisable little Harry and an at-moments  smirking, full-on pressure-cooker Rigg (the intern, NOT the senior vet she presented herself as) demanding I allow her to "euthanase" him - right away, without delay, that afternoon.

But new readers – of which there are tens and sometimes into the hundreds, every day, from all over the world, according to The Customer & The Constituent's analytics - won't know any of that, if you're landing on this latest article of coverage, first. So, for the purposes of your background briefing, the full set of articles is here on the Expose: Killing Harry Kelly summary of links page.

Three & A Half Months of Trying to Rouse the VCNZ Management from Its Collusive Slumber

I first alerted the three key operatives within the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, back on January 6,  having gotten nowhere with Massey except for a legal threat if I continued to speak out, and the near-complete stonewalling of all communications . . . with (in terms of my attempts to secure Harry's records to start putting the picture together retrospectively) either nil response, evasive responses, or ongoing breaches of my Privacy Act 2020 requests (in New Zealand, we have legal access to any records held about us or our children or pets, through the information-release provisions of the Act, and these are viewed by the New Zealand public, public servants, and most competent legal practitioners as the serious legal obligations that they indeed are. That is, unless you're Massey University or the Veterinary Council of New Zealand).

New readers can acquaint themselves with the fact that, contrary to any accepted legal obligation, public service, or institutional standard in this country, Massey has not only thumbed its nose at most of my (very necessary and legitimate) information requirements, but – worse still – when advised by a senior investigator at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to upscale the compelling of the information releases – that is, to use the even more legally serious Official Information Act 1982 – Massey thumbed its nose not even just partly, but in totality, at my requirements. They simply let their legally obligated date pass, at first belatedly stating that they would provide the information, and then not actually doing so at all.

The Seedy Goings-On In the Background . . .

Now for my readers existing and new alike, let me acquaint you with what was going on in the background at Massey and at the collusive VCNZ's management team, the entire time.

For context, I had first begun alerting the VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer, Iain McLachlan (a registered lawyer, hold onto that for a bit later), its Deputy Registrar Liam Shields, and its Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards Seton Butler, way back on January 6. So as not to interrupt the flow of this article, I'll publish evidence of that at the end of this piece.

You'll see from the various evidentiary emails I've included below today's revelations, that it was abundantly clear to these three senior parties – each of whom is at the helm of responsibly for, let us remember, "Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet; Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct; Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary; and Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets"  – that the gravity, severity and multiplicity of the multi-faceted situation at Massey was exactly that i.e. grave, serious and spanning multiple areas of misconduct, malpractice and malfeasance.

Not even arguably. Quite clearly and overtly.

From the emails and experts I've included, you'll also see how – after waiting for more than six weeks with no substantive response – I then wrote and published an Open Letter to McLachlan, in his position as the VCNZ's CEO. He ignored that, along with all my emails. I also published a lengthy and detailed article in which I itemised and laid out all the clauses within his organisation's own Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians   - or the already numerous of these that I was aware of at the time. Of course, with my subsequent and continuing findings, there are many more. But McLachlan also saw fit to ignore my publication of the multiple breaches of his own agency's Code. (At some point, I should, and will, update this list and this article, with all the additional breaches relating to what has since been discovered.)

On February 19, 2026, I wrote to VCNZ McLachlan seeking again his very specific assistance to extract the names and position titles of the licenced staff involved in the whole affair, because – without them – a complainant cannot lodge a complaint in the first place. To be clear (and because the average pet owner would not know this), you can't lodge a complaint against an institution or a veterinary clinic. The system has been neatly set up such that the only way to lodge a complaint is against the individual veterinarian. And what the vet clinic in question – especially those with dodgy staff, records and practices – will often or even typically do (as Massey does), is not tell a client the name of the veterinarian but just have them introduce themselves by their first or informal names. If you've read my coverage leading up to the most recent few articles, you'll see that the only name I had been given for the (what turned out to be just an) "intern" (ironically, the woman who killed my dog) was "Steffi". Believe me, I did NOT use that name for her out of any affection . . . I used it because that's how Massey protect their own i.e. by not disclosing their identities. I guess there's always been a reason for it. Pity pet owners don't put two and two together.

But back to McLachlan. So I wrote to him asking, very specifically now, for his assistance in compelling Massey to release the names . . . so that I could go forward and lay the complaint that, for more than six weeks, McLachlan, Shields and Butler, could all clearly see more than warranted it:

"Dear Mr McLachlan

"I am writing to formally notify the VCNZ that Massey University is actively obstructing my statutory right to file a
professional conduct complaint. I am also asking you to refrain from becoming complicit in support of their illegal
efforts to do so.

"In addition to having cc’d you on almost every email I have sent to Massey on this matter for the past two or more
months (none of which have drawn any concern from you), I yesterday specifically emailed you (attached) to ask
for you assistance to obtain the number, roles and identities of the staff implicated / involved in the abuse, false
diagnosis, and coerced termination, of my dog, Harry Kelly, and indeed the entire matter (as documented in
evidence-supported, granular detail by me and of which you are well aware) and for your related assistance to
submit complaints against each.

"I have had nil response from you.

"As you are aware, your standard complaints process requires the naming of specific practitioners. Massey
University has redacted all clinicians’ identities from Harry Kelly’s records. Their instruction in their January 30
legal threat to 'use the VCNZ channel' while simultaneously withholding the identities required to open that
channel is a bad-faith manoevre to grant their staff immunity from your oversight.

"Action Required: I formally request that the VCNZ exercise its statutory power to demand the unredacted clinical records from Massey University so that a proper regulatory investigation can proceed.."

Let's be clear about two things:

1. If what I had disclosed and was progressively providing them with evidence of didn't even warrant a response from them, what would they consider worthy of their attention?
2. It was absolutely within the power of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to compel Massey to release the names of the staff involved in the complaint that I was trying to lay, but could not, without. Absolutely, fully within their remit.

Any pet owner would be, and should be, utterly dumbfounded in trying to understand their complete lack of interest, absence of any response . . . and refusal to act on their publicised and legal obligations.

But look no further than the following three reasons.

Let's start with this friendly email, signed "Jon" (as in Dean Jon Huxley, Massey University's "Head of Veterinary Science / School"), to the three above-named VCNZ individuals on January 30 . . . the same day he issued me with a legal threat if I continued to speak out about the matter.

From: "Jon Huxley" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/30/2026 3:16:00 AM

To: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "liam@vetcouncil.org.nz" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton Butler" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
>Cc

:Subject: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care

Kia ora koutou,

I am writing regarding recent correspondence from Ms Jordan Kelly, in which she has made a number of serious allegations about the care provided by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Tāwharau ora – School of Veterinary Science at Massey University.

The School categorically refutes all of the allegations she has raised. Earlier this afternoon I advised Ms Kelly directly that, should she wish to pursue her concerns, the appropriate pathway is through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, as the statutory body responsible for regulating the veterinary profession. She has now been formally directed to engage with VCNZ if she wishes to take the matter further.

Given the nature of her communications and the pattern of escalation, the Veterinary Teaching Hospital has declined to provide any future veterinary services to Ms Kelly. The matter has also been referred to the University’s legal counsel, to ensure our position is clear and appropriately documented should further action become necessary.

I appreciate that you will have received her messages, and I am sorry that you have been drawn into what is, at its
heart, a wholly unfounded complaint. Should you wish to discuss the matter, or require any clarification about the
circumstances, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.

Ngā mihi,
Jon
Jon Huxley
Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/
Pronouns: He / Him

(NB:  For my response to Huxley's "wholly unfounded" claim (in which I point out his absence of pharmacological knowledge and his equal absence of any understanding of "informed consent", and that, unless I would wish a THIRD pet to come to a grizzly end at his "school", there is no way in hell any pet of mine will ever enter that godforsaken and wicked place ever again, see here). With reference to Huxley's strategic but laughably insulting use of "care" as a substitute for more accurate descriptors i.e. intentional catastrophic overdosing; physical, pharmacological, psychological and emotional abuse; intention to induce unnecessary death; unauthorised student filming in a collapsing state; withdrawal of treatment admitted for and fully charged and paid for; false diagnosing; misrepresentation and coerced and wrongly-termed "euthanasia"; disgusting and cruel execution thereof; multiple records falsifications; and illegal withholding of full clinical records and associated diagnostics, and breaches of the   Privacy Act information-release and Official Information Act obligations . . . where do I start? Perhaps. for simplicity's sake, just with the multiple breaches of his mate's, VCNZ CEO Iain McLachlan's own Code of Conduct for Professional Veterinarians.)

With regard to Huxley's email, and just in case there's any lack of clarity among readers with regard to the warm and friendly little piece of correspondence you've just read:

You have just read an email from the head of the facility about which I am still trying to lay a multipllcity of complaints, each of which is as serious as it gets (and that have been recognised as such by, for example, the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Inspectorate, with a planned investigation) to the head of the regulatory organisation that is legally obliged to at least look into what the hell is going on at his facility.

The boys' club in action: Hey mates, nothing to see here. I've organised for our lawyers to shut her up. No worries. See you at the next industry do.

But – as you'll readily see from the examples and excerpts of my multiple prior, and fully ignored, communications to the Three VCNZ Amigos – Huxley's email wasn't necessary, anyway. The VCNZ boys had nil intention of doing anything Massey wouldn't want them to do.

It's All One Organisation, In Reality

Which leads directly to the other two reasons they won't do anything: Namely, VCNZ Council Member and Academic Program Director of Massey University's undergraduate veterinary program, Jenny Weston, and Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, Seton Butler.

Weston sits on the very VCNZ Council that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program - while simultaneously serving as the Academic Program Director of that same program. Meantime, Butler draws a salary from the VCNZ as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards while holding - or having very recently held (it's unclear) - a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

But back to "Jon's" (that is, Jon Huxley, but it's all first names basis with the boys over at the VCNZ) January 30 nothing to see here, but give me a call if you want any official narrative email to McLachlan, Shields and Butler.

I hadn't known until quite some time in, that Butler wears / wore / whatever his two interesting hats: Professional Advisor at VCNZ and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

And, since January 6, I'd been cc'ing him on the same emails that McLachlan, the VCNZ CEO had been in receipt of, and that McLachlan could, therefore, readily see I'd cc'd to Butler i.e. an individual with a clear and present conflict of interest. And until I was advised by an external party of this "one foot in each camp" status of Seton, Seton had benefited from every single (and there were many) emails of which McLachlan had been in receipt. And McLachlan had never advised me of that convenient little fact.

That convenient little fact has since turned into a most inconvenient little fact for McLachlan, with my having lodged a formal complaint to the Law Society of New Zealand . . . who have formally advised of the acceptance of that complaint, which will now be working its way through their system. My complaint is two-fold i.e. that McLachlan has acted in a manner so as to bring ill-repute to his profession as a lawyer by knowingly allowing me to correspond with conflicted parties under his jurisdiction, and for direct evasion of his legally obligated duty to assist me in the laying of complaints to his organisation against his licensed members.

Do They Think I Am Stupid, Naive, or Both?

Now . . . in the meantime . . . and for readers wondering how I got hold of the "Jon" nothing to see here, boys, email:

In conjunction with lodging the Law Society complaint against McLachlan, I lodged a Privacy Act (information-release) requirement to McLachlan. I asked for all communications related to me, my dog Harry, the case, between the VCNZ amigos and Massey, and between Seton and Massey, and Weston and VCNZ, and with any other party, internal or external. Actually, I initially asked for the information under the Official Information Act, whereby McLachlan had written back to me telling me the VCNZ wasn't subject to that Act. I had countered by then requiring the same information under the Privacy Act 2020.

On the eve (after-hours, just for a serving of added contempt) of the final day of the 20-working-day legal requirement, I finally heard from Liam Shields. What they served me up was almost entirely just my own emails that I had sent to them.

But they did serve up the Huxley email. Did they do it out of honesty and transparency?

In my view? Of course not. They did it for two reasons:

(1) McLachlan has an active, serious Law Society complaint against him. If he needs, ultimately, to throw Huxley under the bus, to save his skin he'll do it . . . albeit, with his degree of "loyalty" to Massey, it certainly isn't his natural preference.

And (2) they know where this is all ultimately heading: to the courts. They know that, with the "discovery" process, they'll need to release it anyway . . . when their withholding of it now, will look a whole lot worse for them, then.

But here's the thing:   In handing over Huxley's email, they've created an obvious gap in the communications trail. Because there's no reply. Not even an acknowledgement of Huxley's invitation to give him a call for "clarification" of "the circumstances".

I doubt I have any readers who would be willing to believe that no such subsequent communication was had. Which would mean that, in addition to everything else they should be being held accountable for, McLachlan, Shields and co. are in breach of their Privacy Act obligations. I'd also be utterly naive to believe they haven't withheld a whole lot more. And I"m not naive.

If, however, McLachlan himself is so naiive, or so arrogant, or both, that he thinks I either wouldn’t have noticed the absence of any emails or notation of phone calls or text messages in response to Huxely’s invitation to call him for the official version of my “wholly unfounded allegations” . . . then McLachlan is as deluded as was Huxley, when he assumed without question that his January 30 Buddle Findlay “legal action” threat would have me trembling in foetal position under my desk.

Two other things of note:

• Shields disclosed that there had been a meeting held about me but he wouldn't disclose anything about it, because "this information is withheld on the basis that it is identifiable information about a person, and that disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual". So let's just investigate that for a moment. They didn't have a complaint on their books from me because they wouldn't help me get the names of the associated Massey staff so that I could lay a complaint. So with whom, and with regard to what, were they in communication about me? And, regardless, since they are a supposedly neutral industry policing (so to speak) body, why can't I know what they're discussing about me and with whom?

• In the manner of prize gaslighters, Shields' final paragraph (see it at the end of this article) tells me, "I understand that you have been in contact with Massey and they can assist you in the first instance." (Shields was cc'd for two months on emails, and would absolutely have read all my coverage on this publication, that laid out that NO, Massey was NOT "assisting" me with information about anything. Very much the polar opposite, as he was acutely aware. He was in receipt of two prior months' emails about the very fact that Massey won't release the names and have redacted all trace of them from the already-incomplete records that have been the minimal amount of material I have managed to date to extract from them. Although – in his next paragraph (in my view, for the benefit of McLachlan's Law Society situation) – he added, "However, we can request this information on your behalf, if helpful" . . . which is exactly what I had written to them, TWICE, a full month earlier asking them to do. A belated and not exactly warm invitation, and most certainly, not one I would trust him to act on, or fully or ethically, either. Neither he nor his CEO have done anything but convey complete untrustworthiness.

Before I leave you with a taste of some of the correspondence additional to "Jon's" friendly wee email to Iain and the boys over at the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, let me acquaint you with some sobering facts, just in case you're tempted to hang onto any hope that somehow, somewhere, some way, there is any accountability for errant vets in New Zealand. And, when reading these, consider that Massey graduates, who are clearly well-steeped in the Massey culture by the time they "graduate", are exported to multiple countries around the world, but most especially into the unsuspecting Singaporean and Malaysian markets.

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 - that is, 67.2 percent - were not investigated or were dismissed outright. A mere 18 complaints  —  just 1.5% percent of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years. Tell you anything, much?

The study's authors were careful to note that even these figures almost certainly understate the true scale of the problem:

"These data should not be interpreted as an accurate indicator of the prevalence of misconduct in practice, as the proportion of dissatisfied clients who did not raise a notification or complaint is unknown."

In other words, the 67.2 percent dismissal rate and the 1.5 percent uphold rate represent not the ceiling of the problem - but its floor.

Here's the best part:  A co-author of this peer-reviewed study documenting the VCNZ's own complaint dismissal record? One J.F. Weston - of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science. The same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council. Who co-authored the study proving her own regulator dismisses two-thirds of all complaints. While sitting on that regulator's council. The study is published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 2019, Volume 67, Issue 3, pages 117-125.

Source for your reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30786825/

It would be funny if it weren't funny.

Isn't There Some Accountability  Somewhere  . . . Maybe  Internationally?

Now, Readers. I know what's going through your mind. Because it was going through my mind for the longest time while all this was playing out: But isn't there some upper-level, perhaps international, body that the VCNZ or Massey is accountable to?

Dealing with the Massey situation, yes, there are. Three of them. And at least two of those are as collusive as the Veterinary Council is with Massey.

These bodies are the accrediting authorities to which Massey is responsible for maintaining a series of very clear Standards that – just like the VCNZ's farcical Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians – in turn, these accrediting agencies are responsible for ensuring complete and uninterrupted compliance with.

Except they don't. Not at all. If you're interested in just how many such "Standards", and how badly, Massey and its "Companion Animal Hospital" aka "Veterinary Teaching Hospital" are in direct and serious breach of . . . and just how much the heads of those accrediting agencies are determined to ignore it . . . you can read my detailed communications to the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council's Chief Executive Officer, Kate Simkovic, and the American Veterinary Medical Association's Associate Director of Education and Research, Dr Samantha Morello and their smart-assed dismissals and subsequent complete ignorance - which readers can view in the Correspondence section of the Harry Kelly Case Study page (much as it puts a dagger through my heart to be referring to my precious little Harry as a "case study") at the newly-formed International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) i.e. www.iiive.org - which now exists in  Harry's honour.

READERS:

I have laid out all my attempts for a response or some show of assistance, or even acknowledgement, prior to the immediately below email, in chronological order. I want readers to clearly see that I have been endeavouring to draw this to the attention of the senior management of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand since January 6 this year i.e. one month and five days (but who's counting) since "Dr" Stephanie Rigg, the "rotating intern", took it upon herself to front the ruse to ensure that the objective she and her colleagues had to see Harry die, and also to die in utter agony, was achieved.

However, I want to run the immediately below email first, despite it being my most recent, because I want to show readers exactly what VCNZ CEO has wilfully ignored for the past, now approaching, three months:

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/19/2026 3:38:34 PM
To: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz, t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz,
s.reti@ministers.govt.nz, n.willis@ministers.govt.nz, "'Enquiries'" <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Animal Hospital

Dear Iain

You were cc’d on many of my recent, progressive correspondences regarding the collapse of clinical and ethical
standards at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

I am writing to you now for specific guidance on how to progress a series of formal complaints against the various
involved parties – and with the urgency this situation clearly demands.

Currently, I am faced with a significant barrier to justice: Massey University has redacted all names and
professional titles from the Clinical Summary provided to me.

I do not have the identities, nor the professional / role titles, nor do I even have a confirmed count of the
parties involved in the numerous atrocities documented in my extensive coverage of the broader matter -
from the 750% overdose to the intentional withdrawal of care for cruel “instructional” and selfie-style content
filming, to the coerced “euthanasia” to destroy the actual bodily evidence (i.e. my dog), and now (as you will see
from the latest coverage), the evidence tampering / withholding / obstruction.

As the VCNZ is the body responsible for professional standards and licensing, I am asking for your assistance in
sourcing these identities. I cannot effectively file against individuals who are being shielded by institutional
redactions designed to obstruct accountability.

I have today formally briefed the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance
(see below). While my full report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is pending, I wish to move immediately
on formal VCNZ complaints.

Please advise on the process for filing under these circumstances and how the Council intends to compel the
disclosure of the clinicians involved.

The full Ministerial Briefing (with coverage and evidence links) are below.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Overview of Core Issues

1. Intentional Withdrawal of Care: The withholding of any emergency care and even the intentional cessation of life-essential rehydrating fluids to facilitate the filming of at least eight teaching videos - using the patient as a "live prop" during a severe and potentially fatal in-progress pharmacological collapse.

2. Catastrophic (Possibly Intentional) 750% Overdose: The administration of a catastrophic pharmacological overdose followed by a total failure to monitor the patient during the "golden window" of potential reversal.

3. Breach of Informed Consent: The unauthorised conversion of a private patient into a teaching asset and the failure to disclose the use of non-essential and contraindicated drugs.

4. Coerced Termination: The misrepresentation of a reversible, overdose-induced state as a "terminal neurological failure" to coerce a euthanasia decision - effectively liquidating both the patient and the evidence.

5. Evidence Tampering: The illegal (contrary to Privacy Act obligations) destruction and withholding of key information, the calculated omission of automated ICU data logs, and the delivery of redacted files in degraded, redacted, or locked formats to obstruct accountability.

6. Financial Fraud: Phantom billing, including but not limited to invoicing for monitoring equipment that was intentionally disconnected, and billing for ICU “care” and monitoring, postmortem.

7. Misuse of Public Funds for Institutional and Individual Self-Preservation: Utilising Crown-funded legal counsel and senior management time to silence an aggrieved client and conceal a systemic ethical collapse, rather than providing the accountability required by the university's charter.

NOTE:  With reference to the above plea to the VCNZ for assistance (that they are actually obligated to provide) and the CEO's extraordinarily belated undertaking below, no communication nor any assistance ever resulted.

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 2:41:15 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Animal Hospital

Hi Jordan

I have copied in my colleague Liam here. He and his team will do their best to assist you and will be in touch as
soon as they can.

Kind regards
Iain McLachlan
He | Him
Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar
Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand
Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand
P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/6/2026 10:54:14 AM
To: "'Pauline Nijman'" <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>, "'Vet Clinic'" <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jan Thomas'" <J.B.Thomas@massey.ac.nz>, "'Paul Gillespie'"
<P.Gillespie@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jon Huxley'" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>, privacy.officer@massey.ac.nz
Cc: kevin.bryant@nzva.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, iain@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: RE: Vet Records Request Remains Unacknowledged: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/7/2026 2:05:34 PM
To: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Identification of Systemic Custodial Risks at Massey University (Harry Kelly Case)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/9/2026 5:54:11 AM
To: p.gillespie@massey.ac.nz, j.b.thomas@massey.ac.nz, r.geor@massey.ac.nz, j.huxley@massey.ac.nz,
p.a.nijman@massey.ac.nz, privacy@massey.ac.nz, oia@massey.ac.nz, vethospital@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: Formal Notification: International Regulatory Escalation & Disclosure of Clinical Breaches (Harry Kelly
Case)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2026 12:56 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Pauline Nijman <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>; Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; Seton Butler <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT SUPPLEMENT TO DATA REQUEST: CCTV PRESERVATION & MEDICATION TIMINGS - HARRY KELLY

From: "Privacy" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/25/2026 9:53:27 PM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>, "Privacy"
<Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton Butler"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/27/2026 4:17:02 AM
To: "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, enquiries@privacy.org.nz, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: URGENT: VISUAL EVIDENCE OF CRUELTY AND ILL-TREATMENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01
2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan

I have now accessed the download link provided, and I have viewed the videos titled “circling” and “testing of
vestibulo-ocular reflexes”.

Regarding the reflex video, I am profoundly disturbed by what I have witnessed.

The footage captures a cruelly harsh, vice-like grip – with each finger of the harshly gripping hand complete with
fingernails clearly driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp – as his eyes are forced open for the camera.

The sheer terror in Harry’s eyes as he is manhandled and paraded around for display makes for appalling
watching.

It is clear from this recording that Harry was being utilised as a teaching model for the benefit of an audience,
rather than being treated as a private, fee-paying patient in crisis and deserving of dignity and harm minimisation.

If this clenching, fingernails-included restraint represents the standard of care for a “premier” teaching hospital, it is
a matter of grave concern.

Furthermore, the video titled “circling” shows Harry moving at significant speed. This physical vitality directly
contradicts the institutional narrative of a vegetative or collapsed patient.

Further still, this occasional behaviour (when disoriented, as he would have been when separated from me and
being blind) – i.e., circling in disorientation – was a known clinical baseline for Harry following the onset of his
vestibular syndrome on Easter Sunday, 2024. To characterise this familiar, chronic state as a sudden, terminal
neurological collapse is a significant clinical misrepresentation.

These recordings only heighten the necessity of my unrestricted access to the full, unedited record of the EIGHT
videos you have admitted to taking. The two videos provided represent only a fraction of Harry’s time in the
ICU. As I have stated multiple times now, an institution as highly resourced as Massey University is well-equipped
to easily apply standard pixelation technology to address the privacy concerns you purport to be the reason for
withholding this majority proportion of the footage.

I continue to demand the immediate release of the remaining six videos, along with the original metadata for all
eight recordings, to ensure a transparent and independent review of Harry’s “care”.

The 3:18 PM deadline today remains unchanged with reinforced non-negotiability after viewing these two videos –
and especially the vice-like gripping for “vestibular testing” of my clearly terrified little dog.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/27/2026 3:47:35 PM
To: "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: FW: Formal Complaint - Interference with Privacy (Principle 6) - Massey University - Refusal to Provide
Complete Video Records

Please find below a copy of the formal complaint filed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner this afternoon following Massey University’s final refusal to provide the digital records for Harry Kelly (Ref: Kelly 01 2026).
_________________________
NOTICE OF FINAL REFUSAL BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY: On January 27, 2026 at 12.14pm, Massey University issued a final refusal to provide the digital video files requested, explicitly citing Section 53(b)(i) and Section 56(2)(c) of the Privacy Act 2020. This communication confirms that all internal avenues for resolution have been exhausted.

Dear Commissioner:

1. Background

This complaint concerns Massey University’s persistent refusal to provide the full digital record of eight (8) videos taken of my dog, Harry, while he was a patient in the University's 'Companion Animal Hospital' on the night of November 30 and the morning and afternoon of December 1, 2025.

Following a formal request for these records, the university released only two (2) videos. After weeks of delay, they claimed "privacy concerns" for third parties as the basis for withholding the remaining 75% of the footage.

2. Evidence of Cruel Handling and Unexplained Physical Trauma

Upon reviewing the two released videos – specifically the recording titled “testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes” – I have witnessed overtly cruel and unnecessary manhandling of a small, blind, distressed patient.

The footage documents a vice-like grip, with a strong hand (with woman’s fingernails) driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp as his eyes are forced open for the camera and he is moved around, apparently on display.

Furthermore, detailed observation of "goodbye photos" – taken a few minutes before the lethal injection – reveals blood-coloured skin staining under the fur on Harry’s muzzle. This likely indicates that Harry had been bleeding from the nose – an occurrence entirely unrelated to his primary reason for admission (rehydration) and one that is absent from the clinical records provided.

The withholding of the remaining six videos prevents a necessary investigation into when and how this bleeding and the associated physical distress occurred, as well as also preventing all other elements of the investigation clearly needed for the numerous other clinical and professional failures I have identified.

3. Objective Contradiction of the Clinical Record

The second video provided – titled “circling” – documents Harry moving easily and at speed (normal baseline behaviour for him, as a blind dog with a head tilt, when under stress-induced disorientation).

This physical vitality stands in direct, objective contradiction to the contemporaneous clinical notes and the Hospital's recommendation for euthanasia, which characterised Harry as being in a supposedly rapidly progressing, non-recoverable vegetative state.

I contend that the university is withholding the balance of the footage because it likely contains further visual proof that the clinical justifications provided for the termination of Harry’s life were inaccurate and false.

4. Inadequacy of the "Privacy" Justification

Massey University is a premier, highly resourced teaching institution. The technology required to pixelate or blur the faces of third parties is standard and readily available.

Their refusal to utilise this technology to fulfill a Principle 6 request – while instead offering "supervised viewing" (which prevents independent forensic analysis) – constitutes a wilful obstruction of my right to access the full record.

5. Secondary Victimisation and Constructive Denial of Access

The University’s restrictive offer of on-site, in-person-only, supervised viewing is inherently coercive and constitutes a profound act of secondary victimisation.

It would require me to return to the literal scene of the crime – the site where I was deceived and actively coerced into consenting to the unnecessary termination of Harry’s life (over whom I was immensely protective and with whom it was well-known that I was extremely closely bonded as my only “family” member).

On that day, I was made to physically restrain my own dog for the lethal injection under the false clinical pretence that his struggle was merely a "last hurrah” (in the directly quoted words of the Massey vet), when detailed posthumous analysis of the records has subsequently revealed that he was fighting through a haze of undisclosed heavy sedation to respond to me.

To compel a deeply traumatised and grieving owner to return to the environment of such a traumatic and ethically compromised event in order to exercise a basic right to information is both cruel and untenable.

Furthermore, as neither I nor the required independent experts reside in proximity to Palmerston North, this condition represents an insurmountable logistical barrier. This in-person, on-site requirement serves as a constructive denial of access and a direct obstruction of the primary reason for my request: to allow for independent, expert forensic analysis of the records in the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

I am requesting that the Privacy Commissioner compel Massey University to release the remaining six videos in their original digital format, with third-party faces pixelated (and NOT “clipped” or “edited”) as required, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

The withholding of these records appears to be a strategic move to avoid accountability for documented mistreatment and clinical misrepresentation.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
9 Coradine Street
Masterton 5810
Ph: 06 657 0170

NOTE: The above videos have been continually refused by Massey. A Senior Investigator from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner advised me to alternatively compel them under the Official Information Act. However, Massey ignored my "OIA". (For international readers, this is almost unheard of for a New Zealand publicly funded institution. New Zealand's Official Information Act is considered the"holy grail" of information release obligations. NOT optional.) Meantime, the below questions were also fully ignored, and needless to say, no acknowledgement of them, nor any of my other correspondence, was ever forthcoming from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 1:11:31 PM
To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - Personal Information Access & Institutional Policy Disclosure Request (Privacy Act / OIA)

Ms Mullan:

The link should be maintained in place with all materials accessible, in order to provide ready access (and avoid any possible transfer issues) to other parties investigating, or yet to investigate, the case.

In the meantime, I have further information requirements, as follows.

Request for Descriptive Itemisation Regarding Recorded Materials & Withheld Materials (Official Information Act / Privacy Act)

This inquiry is prompted by the significant discrepancies between the clinical logs provided and the footage released thus far, as well with regard to my explicit, documented instructions (both verbally and in writing, and on more than one occasion) to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, that Harry was not to be used as a training tool.

Please provide the following:

1. Digital Metadata and Recording Personnel (To be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

For the two videos released, I require the original metadata and a detailed identification of the procedure being performed or the situation being observed, along with the roles, function, and reasons for participation of all personnel involved:

Timestamps: The precise date and time that each recording commenced and concluded.

The Recorder: The institutional category of the person recording the footage (e.g., Attending Vet, Resident, Student, Nurse, or Instructor).

Monitoring: Who was responsible for monitoring Harry’s vital signs and sedation depth at the specific moment the recording was being taken?

2. Descriptive Audit of the Six Withheld Videos

Regarding the six withheld videos, provide an individual descriptive summary for each separately. (That is, to be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

Clinical Activity: What specific clinical manoeuvre or handling is being performed?

Participants’ Role Identifications: The Institutional Role, Function, and Specific Reason for Participation for every individual present, visible, or audible in the room.

Instructional Context: Does the footage depict instructional speech? Is Harry being used to demonstrate a physical trait or response to a group?

Clinical Justification: What was the medical necessity for the objective of the procedure and the recording thereof, and of the handling depicted, and how does it correspond to the agreed-upon rehydration protocol?

3. Correlation of Sedation and Instructional Activity

Administration Logs: Provide the exact dosage, route, and timestamp for every sedative or analgesic administered within the four-hour window of each of the eight recordings.

"Top-Up” Sedation: Was any additional sedative administered shortly before or during the arrival of a student group or the commencement of student-led "handling"?

Apparent Manufactured Decline: Provide the clinical justification for why Harry’s sedation depth increased significantly between the video’d "circling" event and the time of his being presented to me, rendering him semi-comatose.

4. Standards of Care

For the following three points/questions are also provided for the assistance of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) in the detailed investigation of this case (which the Council will shortly be formally asked to perform):

a. “Handling" vs "Observation" Distinction: If a student is merely present in the room, that constitutes observation. However, the moment a student lays hands on a sedated patient to perform manoeuvres – such as the severe head-restraint and eye forcing-open seen in the released footage – they are performing a clinical manoeuvre. Under VCNZ requirements, any manual interaction with a patient for educational purposes is a "teaching procedure". If it required the
patient to be sedated to facilitate that touch, it falls squarely under the requirement for explicit, recorded consent.

b. "Clinical Notes" Requirement: The VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct mandates that explicit consent for a student to perform a procedure under sedation "must be recorded in the clinical notes". As the provided clinical notes for Harry are entirely silent on these manoeuvres and the participation of students, please identify the specific document or entry that satisfies this professional obligation. Failure to produce this record constitutes a documented violation of the VCNZ Code.

c. Definition of a "Procedure": A medical "procedure" is any act performed on a patient for a diagnostic, a therapeutic, or an educational purpose.

If these manoeuvres were "diagnostic", they should have been performed by a qualified veterinarian and the findings recorded in the logs.

If they were "educational", they required my explicit, prior consent. The University cannot have it both ways; if the handling was not recorded as a diagnosis and was not consented to as education, it stands as unauthorised handling of my property.

5. Digital Security, Non-Massey Devices, and Ethical Exploitation

Massey has previously claimed that the 75% of unreleased footage cannot be provided because pixelation of the participants' faces is not possible or too difficult.

By your own admission in previous correspondence, these recordings were captured on a cell phone.

This admission suggests a catastrophic breach of the Privacy Act 2020, the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, basic clinical standards and basic, well-accepted digitised information security protocols.

Allowing Harry to be recorded on non-secure, personal devices that are not under the University's direct data control amounts to having permitted my private property (Harry) to be treated as "content" rather than clinical data.

Therefore, I require immediate clarification on the following:

Inventory of Non-Massey Devices: Were any other recordings (video or photographic) made or permitted of any other time or aspect of Harry’s stay – regardless of whether they were for "official" hospital use, and that are stored on non-Massey devices?

"Exploitation" Audit: Please state for the record how Massey University monitors and prevents the unauthorised digital exploitation of patients by personnel using personal hardware. If students and staff are permitted to record what they want on their own phones, how does the University track, secure, or delete that data once those individuals leave the premises?

Chain of Custody and Data Breach: Who owns the cell phone(s) used to record (a) the released, (b) the still-withheld, and (c) any as-yet to be admitted-to, videos (per further disclosure required above)? How was the security of this personal information (my property) guaranteed once it left the clinic floor, and where is the audit trail confirming that these original files have been deleted from those private devices?

Breach of Digital Ethics: Does Massey University policy specifically permit the recording of sedated patients on unencrypted, private mobile devices for student study or "observation" notes? If so, please provide the policy document that justifies this practice under the Privacy Act 2020.

Disclosure re Points of Distribution: Have any recordings of Harry been shared, uploaded, or transmitted to any private cloud storage or social messaging platforms (e.g., but not limited to, WhatsApp, iCloud, or Google Photos) by the individuals who recorded them? Are they downloadable from the Massey data storage facility? If so, to whom, and why, and with what specific limitations? And are any such limitations enforced?

Legislative Facta

The following legislative facta are provided for both the edification of Massey executives, clinical staff, and ethics committee members, and also so that, Ms Mullan, you can address your adherence to them in your reply to the email I am sending you today:

Breach of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC): While this primarily applies to humans, the VCNZ and Massey’s own ethics should mirror these standards.

Using a cell phone fails the Storage and Security rule, which requires that information be protected by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take against loss or unauthorised access.

Institutional Negligence: Failure to provide professional recording equipment for clinical/educational purposes indicates a failure of the Consumer Guarantees Act standard of "reasonable care and skill". A professional veterinary hospital utilising a student’s or a staff member's private phone as a recording device constitutes a failure of institutional infrastructure and a breach of professional standards.

Breach of "Bailment" via Digital Misappropriation: As the "bailee" (the party holding my property), Massey had a duty to protect Harry. By allowing unauthorised digital copies of him to be made on private devices, the University has "misappropriated" the likeness and clinical state of my property for its own purposes. This is a direct violation of the terms of bailment under which Harry was admitted for medical care.

Legal Framework and the Limitation of General Consent

To be noted: Any general acknowledgment of Massey’s "teaching status" does not constitute Informed Consent for specific deviations from a clinical treatment plan, nor does it override my explicit instructions that Harry NOT be used as a training tool. It is also to be noted, that on more than one occasion – including in writing and on intake forms (or similar documentation) – I specifically forbade the use of Harry as a teaching tool. One (but not the only) reason for this was my
observation of the inexperience and inaccuracy (e.g. inadequate listening skills and compromised note-taking ability) of some of the vet staff I had encountered there, and the “specimen” vs sentient being attitude of other personnel towards Harry and also particularly towards my previous pet (who died at your facility).

Meantime, this request is issued with reference to:

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993: Regarding the delivery of services as per the agreed-upon clinical consent and the requirement of “reasonable care and skill”.

Animal Welfare Act 1999: Regarding the ethical justification for sedation and the avoidance of unnecessary distress.

VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Regarding the requirement for explicit consent for student-led procedures under sedation.

Property Law (Bailment): Regarding the unauthorised use of private property for institutional gain.

Breach of Duty and Strict Liability

Deviation from Terms: A bailee is bound by the terms of the bailment, whether express or implied. If a bailee uses a chattel in a way not authorised by the owner, they are liable for any loss or damage.

Conversion: Using bailed property for personal or institutional gain without permission is typically considered "conversion" – a tort that occurs when a bailee acts in a manner inconsistent with the owner's title.

As I did not authorise the sedation of Harry – and had specifically forbidden his use as a 'training tool' – any administration of sedatives constitutes a fundamental deviation from the terms of bailment. Under the principles of strict liability, Massey is liable for the unauthorised “use”' of my property and the subsequent clinical decline that occurred while the terms of our agreement were being breached.

I await your timely provision of the required information, with the appropriately detailed response to all the questions laid out herein.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 5:22:00 PM

To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>, "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, enquiries@privacy.org.nz

Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records

Ms Mullan:

I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.

The "Clinical Summary" provided is a subjective narrative produced after the fact. It is not a clinical record. Under the Privacy Act 2020, I am entitled to the raw, contemporaneous, and complete data held by the hospital. I require the immediate disclosure of the following Primary Records:

Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.

Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.

Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.

Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.

Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed.

To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting:

I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including View Logs (who accessed the file and when), Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.

To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan:

A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the facts themselves.

As you and your veterinary school personnel and your legal team would well know, the 101-page “Clinical Summary” and the “Change logs” you provided to date are secondary, processed narratives and metadata. They are not the primary clinical records.

My request specifically encompasses the missing Medication Administration Records (MAR), the original ICU Flow Sheets containing hourly vital sign data, and the raw, machine-generated laboratory printouts. The absence of these primary documents means Massey University remains in breach of its disclosure obligations.

Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would not become aware of, I wish to express my further disgust at the Massey institution for yet again attempting to take advantage of a pet parent’s lack of specific clinical and related administrative knowledge for the obvious purposes of obscuration.

One would have thought the fact that this imbalance in the clinic/institution vs per owner relationship – having already resulted in the fraudulent diagnosis and coerced, otherwise unnecessary “euthanasia” of my dog as a cover-up for your multiple instances of malpractice – would have been enough lying and dishonesty to be recorded against you by one pet owner.

Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.

Please confirm by the Close of Business tomorrow that these raw records (in their entirety) are being prepared for urgent release, in order to avoid the need for me to file a second formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 4:04 pm
To: 'e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz' <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>; 't.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz'
<t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>; 'a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz' <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>; 's.reti@ministers.govt.nz'
<s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>; 'n.willis@ministers.govt.nz' <n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR MINISTERIAL ATTENTION:

This communication identifies a systemic regulatory failure involving the VCNZ and Massey University. Massey has redacted clinicians’ names from the ‘Clinical Summary’ (supplied under the Privacy Act 2020) to physically prevent the filing of statutory VCNZ complaints, while the VCNZ’s own Professional Advisor maintains an active teaching role at the University, and also while the University is in active engagement with external lawyers in attempt of my suppression and also regarding likely required future legal defence.

Dear Mr McLachlan

I am writing to formally notify the VCNZ that Massey University is actively obstructing my statutory right to file a professional conduct complaint. I am also asking you to refrain from becoming complicit in support of their illegal efforts to do so.

In addition to having cc’d you on almost every email I have sent to Massey on this matter for the past two or more months (none of which have drawn any concern from you), I yesterday specifically emailed you (attached) to ask for your assistance to obtain the number, roles and identities of the staff implicated / involved in the abuse, false diagnosis, and coerced termination, of my dog, Harry Kelly, and indeed the entire matter (as documented in evidence-supported, granular detail by me and of which you are well aware) and for your related assistance to submit complaints against each.

I have had nil response from you.

As you are aware, your standard complaints process requires the naming of specific practitioners. Massey University has redacted all clinicians’ identities from Harry Kelly’s records. Their instruction in their January 30 legal threat to "use the VCNZ channel" while simultaneously withholding the identities required to open that channel is a bad-faith manoevre to grant their staff immunity from your oversight.

Action Required:

I formally request that the VCNZ exercise its statutory power to demand the unredacted clinical records from Massey University so that a proper regulatory investigation can proceed.

Conflict of Interest

I request an immediate formal statement of position on the clear Conflict of Interest regarding your Professional Advisor, Mr Seton Butler.

As a current Adjunct Lecturer at Massey, his involvement in any advice regarding this case constitutes a "Perceived Conflict" that threatens the integrity of your office, and of Massey University’s governance standards. Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows for the disclosure of information necessary to "uphold or enforce the law“.There is no legal shield for clinician anonymity when the purpose is to subvert a statutory regulatory process.

I look forward to your response within 24 hours given the gravity of the many components of this matter, as documented in the more than 30 items of coverage I have produced, available here – and with specific (but not limited to) centring on core issues as detailed and evidentially supported here, here, here and here.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

NOTE:  With regard to VCNZ CEO's February 20 undertaking that his 2IC, "Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint". that never happened. No communication was received, except for the 11th hour (i.e. March 19 and incomplete) response to my Privacy Act information-release request,  in which Shields gaslightingly directed me, in the first instance straight back to Massey (!) for the redacted names that he has been, for two months, well aware they will not disclose. He's also well aware that Massey has gone as far as having breached its legal obligations under the Official Information Act, regarding this and the other information I have asked for under the Act. He also directed me to use his website's "notification" form if I wanted to lay a complaint. A far cry from McLachlan's already minimal and very belated response and undertaking (below) - which, as you will see from the cc'd parties, he made purely for the benefit of his reputation in front of the listed government Ministers. In my opinion, the breaking of this February 20 undertaking represented the absence of any genuine intention in the first place.

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 3:20:53 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz" <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>, "t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz"
<t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>, "a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz" <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>,
"s.reti@ministers.govt.nz" <s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>, "n.willis@ministers.govt.nz"
<n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>, "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

Dear Jordan

I believe our emails must have crossed each other as I responded to you this afternoon. I have passed on your email
to our legal team and they will assist you with your complaint.

I can assure you that Dr Butler plays no role in the complaints process and will have no direct involvement in this
matter. All decisions in our complaints process are made by independent committees following robust conflict of
interest checks, which you will have the opportunity to comment on.

Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint.

Kind regards
Iain McLachlan
He | Him
Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar
Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand
Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand
P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz

The following is a reminder to VCNZ CEO McLachlan of the multitude of serious, and now forensically-detailed evidence - across many my published articles for his attention:

Overview of Core Issues

1. Intentional Withdrawal of Care: The withholding of any emergency care and even the intentional cessation of life-essential rehydrating fluids to facilitate the filming of at least eight teaching videos - using the patient as a "live prop" during a severe and potentially fatal inprogress pharmacological collapse.

2. Catastrophic (Possibly Intentional) 750% Overdose: The administration of a catastrophic pharmacological overdose followed by a total failure to monitor the patient during the "golden window" of potential reversal.

3. Breach of Informed Consent: The unauthorised conversion of a private patient into a teaching asset and the failure to disclose the use of non-essential and contraindicated drugs.

4. Coerced Termination: The misrepresentation of a reversible, overdose-induced state as a"terminal neurological failure" to coerce a euthanasia decision - effectively liquidating both the patient and the evidence.

5. Evidence Tampering: The illegal (contrary to Privacy Act obligations) destruction and withholding of key information, the calculated omission of automated ICU data logs, and the delivery of redacted files in degraded, redacted, or locked formats to obstruct accountability.

6. Financial Fraud: Phantom billing, including but not limited to invoicing for monitoring equipment that was intentionally disconnected, and billing for ICU “care” and monitoring, postmortem.

7. Misuse of Public Funds for Institutional and Individual Self-Preservation: Utilising Crown-funded legal counsel and senior management time to silence an aggrieved client and conceal a systemic ethical collapse, rather than providing the accountability required by the university's charter.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/20/2026 4:54:54 PM
To: OIA@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz,
t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz, s.reti@ministers.govt.nz,
n.willis@ministers.govt.nz, enquiries@privacy.org.nz, "'Info'" <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>
Subject: URGENT OIA/PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT: Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Obstruction

Further to my OIA request of February 13, 2026 regarding legal expenditure (which is now on Day 5 of the statutory clock), I am formally adding the following urgent items to my request. Note that two are reminders of still-unsatisfied information requests i.e. Items 4 and 5.

Given the discovery of new evidence regarding regulatory conflicts, I request the following under the Official Information Act 1982:

1. Identity of Clinicians: The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the “care”, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period. Note: Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process. Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.

It may be noted that, at 3.41pm this afternoon, the VCNZ diverted my requests for assistance to a VCNZ staff member (after ignoring the totality of emails on which he has been cc’d on this matter for the past two months). There is still no indication that the names and titles will be provided, and it is, regardless, the legal obligation of Massey University directly, to provide these. Thus, I am filing this OIA to ensure the legal requirement for transparency is met while his staff “does their best to assist”.

This sub-matter, but critical matter, for the proper serving of justice, should be noted in the context of the following
further requests:

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ.

3. Instructional Content Authorisation: All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part / operation / department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly’s admission.

4. Pet Farewells: As per previous unresponded-to requests, all communications (written, verbal, electronic,through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly.

5. Post-Mortem Activity: As per previous unresponded-to requests, disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly.

Urgency Requested: These items are inextricably linked to the “Legal Expenditure” request already in your system. The use of public funds to hire Buddle Findlay while simultaneously obstructing a regulatory process through redaction is a matter of immediate public interest.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

On 25 Feb 2026, at 10:16, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com wrote:

Dear Mr McLachlan

I am formally requesting all information held by the VCNZ regarding myself and the Harry Kelly matter.

Although I have not yet submitted a formal complaint - as I am still identifying the specific clinicians involved - I am concerned by the potential for there having been pre-investigation collusion, as well as collusion once my complaint has been formally submitted to you.

A key point of interest is as follows (although my investigations and concerns are not limited to):

Given that Dr Jenny Weston holds the concurrent roles of Dean of Veterinary Education at Massey and Statutory Council Member of the VCNZ, there exists a profound structural conflict of interest.

I request all correspondence (incoming, outgoing, or sent/received by third parties/staff acting on her behalf) where Dr Weston has discussed my case, my published investigation into the matter and any aspect thereof, or the "summarisation" of Harry's records with VCNZ staff or other Council members.

This request specifically also includes all forms of informal or verbal communication, including records of the occurrence of any such communications, including but not limited to:

File notes or summaries of telephone calls, in-person briefings, SMS/text messages, WhatsApp or other instant messaging platforms, and internal MS Teams chats. (Here I am seeking the literal record of any "informal advice" or "background context" provided by Dr Weston or her delegates that sits outside formal email channels.)

I am specifically seeking to identify if Dr Weston has used her "Ex Officio" status to provide "informal context" or "background briefings" that might prejudice the regulator’s eventual receipt and handling of my formal complaint regarding:

- The 750% pharmacological overdose and unauthorised filming of Harry;
- The cessation of his treatment and fluids protocol;
- The false diagnosis and the coerced termination of Harry.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly